congress_committee_bills

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the dependency on committee codes and the analytical purpose, but does not describe response format, pagination, or edge cases. This is acceptable but not rich beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb+resource, and every sentence provides value: the first states the action, the second gives a prerequisite and a use case. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what fields are returned or how results are ordered/paginated. However, the purpose and prerequisite are clear, and the readOnlyHint covers safety. It is adequate but leaves room for more detail about the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description only reiterates the committee_code parameter indirectly by referencing congress_committees. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for limit or chamber.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get bills referred to a specific committee', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on bills by committee, and the phrase 'Use congress_committees to find the committee system code' adds a helpful cross-reference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear use case ('tracking which bills die in committee vs. get reported out') and tells the user to consult congress_committees for the code. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like congress_member_bills or congress_bill_committees, but the guidance is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.